Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[x99]

On 8/26/2018 at 11:05 AM, terra firma said:

requirements while building what made sense economically, with plenty of input from SEVEN different neighborhood associations.   It takes several months to get through all that process--- it's hardly efficient -- the building you see rendered is the result of all of these inputs.    And it's gonna look a whole lot better than the unused surface lot next to a derelict house that's been vacant for years !   Not everyone is going to like what we do--- maybe you'll come around after it's a completed project, contributing vibrancy to the street and helping clean up what is currently a mess.

eric

I'm not trying to be too harsh on the design, or on you.  It is infill, and does add vibrancy, but when working in a district that is historically preserved, "better than a derelict or a parking lot" should not be enough, if that designation is supposed to mean something.  I would expect, in a district comprised solely of midcentury architecture, or "modern" architecture, that infill would be a good riff on that.  An Italianate Revival should not be slapped in the middle of that.  The inverse, however, should also be true, but rarely is.   Oppositional modern-style buildings are regularly plopped down right in the middle of a traditionally styled historic district.  

Ultimately, this sort of thing degrades the "historic fabric" the place was preserved for in the first place.  My first standard for appropriateness is that if my family members who couldn't care less about historic districts or architecture would say "then how did they build that" when told it's a historic district, something is wrong.  This building fails that test, and it is HPC's fault, since they approved it.  Shame on them, not on you or your architects.  They lost some of their best members recently, and it shows up quite painfully in projects like this.  You got away with what you could, and the damage will be done, sanctioned and wrapped up with a bow.

Somehow, I completely overlooked 623 Lyon.   I just looked it up on Streetview.  Exemplary.  Wonderfully contextual, and hilariously, not even inside of a historic district.  Truly an example of placemaking, not to mention preserving and enhancing the quality and architectural character of a neighborhood.  And they did it just because--not because of some government mandate--AMAZING!I give it the x99 award for some of the very best small-scale traditional architecture infill in Grand Rapids in the last 80 years.  It just goes to show that pedestrian, forgettable, out-of-place dreck in traditional historic districts is completely out of excuses.  If I were terra firma, I would scap this (comparative) ugly duckling, hire that 623 Lyon architect, and start over.  The difference in the rents alone over the next 30 years from having a building of that superior design...

Edited August 29, 2018 by x99

[terra firma]

On 8/28/2018 at 5:40 PM, x99 said:

I'm not trying to be too harsh on the design, or on you. 

OK--- good to hear.

Ultimately, this sort of thing degrades the "historic fabric" the place was preserved for in the first place. 

What "place" are we talking about, the vacant site or the dilapidated house ?  

his building fails that test, and it is HPC's fault, since they approved it.  Shame on them, not on you or your architects.  They lost some of their best members recently, and it shows up quite painfully in projects like this.  You got away with what you could, and the damage will be done,

Thanks for the glowing endorsement  :)   We didn't actually sit down and say "lets see what we can get away with."   We are enthused about the neighborhood, excited about contributing to the vibrancy, employment, and tax base in this area.   Yes, we are here to collect rent.   Indeed that is our business.   If  deals dont make sense, then we dont do 'em and neighborhoods dont evolve.   Would you believe, many people even including  our own tenants, think we have been a positive contributor.    I'm actually not mad that you've said these things,  and I'm grateful that open discussions like this can occur online.  It is totally fair game here and I'm grateful for your thoughts, despite the fact I may not agree with you all the time :-)

We will continue our work and may even do more projects in that area, it's been deeply rewarding despite the couple gripers and the lengthy process to get approvals in place - we've met  some really awesome people along the way, and have enjoyed the challenges for sure.

Have a great weekend!

eric wynsma, terra firma development

 

[GVSUChris]

Speaking of Wild Bunch - it looks like the City is looking to demolish the Wild Bunch building as they believe it is not salvageable and a risk to public safety. I'm really glad to hear this. They have prepared a presentation for the Historic Preservation Commission which I would have to believe shouldn't be an issue seeing as it is the city seeking this request. 

[MJLO]

25 minutes ago, GVSUChris said:

Speaking of Wild Bunch - it looks like the City is looking to demolish the Wild Bunch building as they believe it is not salvageable and a risk to public safety. I'm really glad to hear this. They have prepared a presentation for the Historic Preservation Commission which I would have to believe shouldn't be an issue seeing as it is the city seeking this request. 

It annoys me that the city would need to put a presentation to the HPC to remove a burnt out collapsing structure.   

[Pattmost20]

20 minutes ago, GVSUChris said:

Speaking of Wild Bunch - it looks like the City is looking to demolish the Wild Bunch building as they believe it is not salvageable and a risk to public safety. I'm really glad to hear this. They have prepared a presentation for the Historic Preservation Commission which I would have to believe shouldn't be an issue seeing as it is the city seeking this request. 

I really hope it goes away. It would be great to see something kind of connect Woosah and Georginas (Or whatever comes in after they shut down) to Elk Brewing and the rest of the Wealthy/Henry corner. Wild Bunch was always such a dead spot.

[GRDadof3]

On 8/31/2018 at 9:01 AM, MJLO said:

It annoys me that the city would need to put a presentation to the HPC to remove a burnt out collapsing structure.   

Yeah in places like Chicago they tear that shit down left and right without asking.

I can't believe anyone went through this building to document the deterioration. The building's probably going to collapse before this goes through HPC.

If you want to see more: http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3700&Inline=True

[x99]

On 8/30/2018 at 1:47 PM, terra firma said:

Ultimately, this sort of thing degrades the "historic fabric" the place was preserved for in the first place. 

What "place" are we talking about, the vacant site or the dilapidated house ?  

his building fails that test, and it is HPC's fault, since they approved it.  Shame on them, not on you or your architects.  They lost some of their best members recently, and it shows up quite painfully in projects like this.  You got away with what you could, and the damage will be done,

Thanks for the glowing endorsement   We didn't actually sit down and say "lets see what we can get away with."   We are enthused about the neighborhood, excited about contributing to the vibrancy, employment, and tax base in this area.   Yes, we are here to collect rent.   Indeed that is

I had a long, lengthy, and overly academic explanation typed up that I decided would bore you to death.    I'll post it anyway in case you're interested in this stuff, but here's the condensed version:  When you're dealing with a historic district, the "place" is the district--not just one or two buildings.  "Vibrancy" is great, but if you dump enough "modern" style buildings or additions into a "traditional" historic district (or depending on the district, possibly even a single building) you've still harmed the character the district exists to preserve.   Sure, you've improved it as an urban place, but at some cost.   However, it is entirely possible to both improve the urban experience and even augment the historic fabric.  That ought to be the goal.  Sadly, it is rarely achieved.

A simplified version my longer explanation is that the National Park Service, whose job it is to write and interpret historic district regulations, says that you don't dump incompatible buildings into historic districts.  It is also increasingly clear that "compatible" means "of an architecturally similar style" and that "incompatible" means something "very different" from the surrounding buildings.  Hence my prior comment that you do not indiscriminately plunk down an Italianate Revival into a district full of later Modernist structures, nor vice-versa.  It's like putting a zebra in the middle of the horse show.  It wrecks the show.  Everyone just keeps looking at the zebra.  For infill in a traditional historic district to work how it is supposed to, you need a couple things to come together:  1) Architects or developers who value traditional architecture OR a historic commission who will require compatible (read: similar) architectural styles within districts; and 2) An architect who has traditional design expertise (most don't). 

Both those elements were coming together increasingly well for quite a few years thanks largely to a small handful of people on the GR HPC who had real knowledge of how to avoid doing damage.  Unfortunately, many of the best are gone now.  grcentro (who posts here from time to time) mentioned Steve Semes' book Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation.  It's on my shelf.  The author was largely responsible for the rewrite of National Park Service interpretive materials on this topic.  It's also the only recent full length book listed in the bibliography for the "preservation brief" that historic commissions are supposed to use for guidance about additions and infill.  I would wager a guess most people sitting on the HPC today have not read it and most architects working in these districts have not.  If they have not, they are not qualified, respectively, to judge applications like this or design buildings in historic districts.  If you don't even read the background material which is readily available, how can you possibly expect to come out the right way?  

This building is an exemplar of how to do it wrong, courtesy of the NPS:  

NPS comments that this addition on the left is "starkly different and is not compatible." 

Here's another, with the comment that "the design ... overwhelms the two-story and the one-story, low-rise historic buildings: 

Your building commits many of the same sins that these buildings commit so far as the designs are starkly different from their surroundings, and to a lesser extent, overwhelm the designs of similar historic structures.  To be more specific, the vast amounts of glass without apparent structural supports (particularly on the corners), and an odd, unpainted gigantic wooden frieze are both without precedent nearby in the district.  Not to mention the metal canopy tacked across the front.  When you add something that is not only without precedent in the district but which is also uninspired by traditional design principles, it does tend to "overwhelm" surround buildings as a result of the differences.  In a perfect example, who knows what Electric Cheetah looks like basically immediately?  Everyone.  Now who knows exactly what Toppers' looks like?   That's a problem.  A historic district should not be readily identifiable by its loud and boisterous infill. 

By contrast, the new building on Lyon, despite being multiple stories, would not "overwhelm" anything in this district.  The design is so good that the building would just blend and disappear, despite the height.   It's beautiful, well-balanced, and traditionally styled. That's the beauty of getting it right:  You can do a larger building. Now, put that same building in the middle of 28th Street?  It would be the Electric Cheetah problem, in reverse. Everyone would notice it instantly.

To be clear:  This is not bad infill that hurts the neighborhood.  It is just bad infill for this historic district.  From a historic preservation perspective are these buildings worse than a vacant lot and an old, dilapidated house?  Arguably.  But only from that perspective.  It's a bunch of philosophical stuff that most developers could not care less about, for a variety of very valid reasons.  When it's pointed out, though, hopefully it makes sense.  

Again, none of this is your fault.  As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this, unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado.  Your architects are thoroughly parked in the modern camp (and have admitted as much here), and I wouldn't expect anyone to get a really good traditional design out of them voluntarily.  It ain't their thing, and that's fine.  You want traditional you call Dixon Architects in Ada, or someone else who has done it and done it very well.  I would love to know who did that building on Lyon.  They're also on the short list.  Next time around, don't be afraid to try something like that.  

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, x99 said:

 

 

By contrast, the new building on Lyon, despite being multiple stories, would not "overwhelm" anything in this district.  The design is so good that the building would just blend and disappear, despite the height.   It's beautiful, well-balanced, and traditionally styled. That's the beauty of getting it right:  You can do a larger building. Now, put that same building in the middle of 28th Street?  It would be the Electric Cheetah problem, in reverse. Everyone would notice it instantly.

To be clear:  This is not bad infill that hurts the neighborhood.  It is just bad infill for this historic district.  From a historic preservation perspective are these buildings worse than a vacant lot and an old, dilapidated house?  Arguably.  But only from that perspective.  It's a bunch of philosophical stuff that most developers could not care less about, for a variety of very valid reasons.  When it's pointed out, though, hopefully it makes sense.  

Again, none of this is your fault.  As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this, unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado.  Your architects are thoroughly parked in the modern camp (and have admitted as much here), and I wouldn't expect anyone to get a really good traditional design out of them voluntarily.  It ain't their thing, and that's fine.  You want traditional you call Dixon Architects in Ada, or someone else who has done it and done it very well.  I would love to know who did that building on Lyon.  They're also on the short list.  Next time around, don't be afraid to try something like that.  

623 Lyon near Martha's Vineyard was initially designed by Lott3Metz, but since the current building doesn't look anything like this drawing from the PC back in November 2015, I don't know if they ended up doing the final design.

I used to have a drawing of the new building but I'm not sure where it went. We all discussed 623 Lyon back in 2017:

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/115764-marthas-vineyard/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1480606

 

[Guest]

Some posters need to add a TLDR

[GRDadof3]

10 hours ago, Floyd_Z said:

Some posters need to add a TLDR

I think TLDR means "too long didn't read," not "too long don't read."

I personally find some of the longer posts to be highly enlightening. We used to have  a poster here named freddyc or something who did really long posts about really off-topic crap, mostly racism IIRC. He was eventually banned as @MJLO reminded me recently. 

[joeDowntown]

12 hours ago, Floyd_Z said:

Some posters need to add a TLDR

I enjoy x99's long posts. I don't always agree with them, but they're well thought out and I learn a thing or two most posts.

Joe

[MJLO]

14 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

I enjoy x99's long posts. I don't always agree with them, but they're well thought out and I learn a thing or two most posts.

Joe

Admittedly I also enjoy @x99's insight.  Although I still picture this being @x99 at their computer lol.

[terra firma]

On 9/6/2018 at 4:41 PM, x99 said:

 

I had a long, lengthy, and overly academic explanation typed up

That seems to be your style...

  As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this,

 Yes, developers don't know what basic architectural fundamentals are.  Obviously.  When we go to developer school, they teach us to ignore these  principles.

unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado. 

Yes, I have a few historic preservation projects in my past.   

.  You want traditional you call Dixon Architects in Ada,

Finally we agree on something.   I've done numerous historic renovation  projects with Ken Dixon.   For various reasons, I used Metz on this one and I could not be more impressed by their ability to help me "get away with" this design, per your earlier comment.    They really are great to work with---  I'd say the same about Dixon of course.  Both firms are awesome, for different reasons.  Have you ever worked with either on any of your projects ?  

 Next time around, don't be afraid to try something like that.  

Next time around, it sounds like I should just call you for permission on whatever I'm thinking about, since developers aren't "expected to know any of this" and such.   

  Some of us are busy doing projects, others are busy 'instructing' from keyboards on the internet.     The styling of this building reflects what we wanted, what the community said they wanted, what our architects designed, and what the HPC could / would approve.    I'm pretty surprised the HPC didn't call you to ask what you thought !

[GRDadof3]

17 hours ago, terra firma said:

I had a long, lengthy, and overly academic explanation typed up

That seems to be your style...

  As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this,

 Yes, developers don't know what basic architectural fundamentals are.  Obviously.  When we go to developer school, they teach us to ignore these  principles.

unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado. 

Yes, I have a few historic preservation projects in my past.   

.  You want traditional you call Dixon Architects in Ada,

Finally we agree on something.   I've done numerous historic renovation  projects with Ken Dixon.   For various reasons, I used Metz on this one and I could not be more impressed by their ability to help me "get away with" this design, per your earlier comment.    They really are great to work with---  I'd say the same about Dixon of course.  Both firms are awesome, for different reasons.  Have you ever worked with either on any of your projects ?  

 Next time around, don't be afraid to try something like that.  

Next time around, it sounds like I should just call you for permission on whatever I'm thinking about, since developers aren't "expected to know any of this" and such.   

  Some of us are busy doing projects, others are busy 'instructing' from keyboards on the internet.     The styling of this building reflects what we wanted, what the community said they wanted, what our architects designed, and what the HPC could / would approve.    I'm pretty surprised the HPC didn't call you to ask what you thought !

I actually do think that consulting with someone like x99 on projects would pay off and probably net a nicer looking building (on anything on an urban infill lot). 

I don't know if you guys will see eye to eye so maybe it's better if everyone shakes hands and move on. 

 

[terra firma]

53 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I actually do think that consulting with someone like x99 on projects would pay off and probably net a nicer looking building (on anything on an urban infill lot). 

I don't know if you guys will see eye to eye so maybe it's better if everyone shakes hands and move on. 

 

GRDad---  I consult with industry pro's on every project and generally stay out of the way on overall design--- I'm no designer or architect -- and perhaps x99 is God's gift to urban revitalization but his know-it-all style sucks and I dont care for the insulting nature of his words.  

OK--- enough on that.  I'll move along now.   

Thanks for your interest.

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, terra firma said:

GRDad---  I consult with industry pro's on every project and generally stay out of the way on overall design--- I'm no designer or architect -- and perhaps x99 is God's gift to urban revitalization but his know-it-all style sucks and I dont care for the insulting nature of his words.  

OK--- enough on that.  I'll move along now.   

Thanks for your interest.

Fair enough. Thanks as always for not being afraid to subject your projects to "feedback" from this group. 

[x99]

6 hours ago, terra firma said:

GRDad---  I consult with industry pro's on every project and generally stay out of the way on overall design--- I'm no designer or architect -- and perhaps x99 is God's gift to urban revitalization but his know-it-all style sucks and I dont care for the insulting nature of his words.  

OK--- enough on that.  I'll move along now.   

I won't claim to know everything... I certainly don't.   All I said was that I wouldn't expect you (or most developers, for that matter) to know or care much about historic preservation.  That's not your job, and that was my point.  I was also pointing out--I think correctly, but options may differ--that having "stand out", clearly identifiable modern style buildings in traditional historic districts is not a good thing.   This is no Electric Cheetah, to be sure, but I also don't think it's entirely benign.  I was also pointing out a few reasons, with detailed examples, why I felt this was not a very good design for this particular historic district.  If the way I chose to do that was insulting to you, you have my apologies.  No insult was intended.

On 9/9/2018 at 2:30 PM, terra firma said:

  As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this,

 Yes, developers don't know what basic architectural fundamentals are.  Obviously.  When we go to developer school, they teach us to ignore these  principles.

unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado. 

Most developers have little if any backing in historic preservation rules, theory or practice.  I was overly presumptuous expecting you too would not.   I should have been more careful. 

As for my earliest comment you were "getting away" with something... you're right implying that was a little rude.  It was, and I shouldn't have directed it at you.  Like you said, you leave the design details to the design professionals.  That's really where my comment should have been directed.  I was trying to avoid another war of words with those particular design professionals (which some may remember from a couple years ago).  Suffice to say a lot of this is subjective, and they and I disagree about the subject.  I shouldn't have dragged you into a long dead Internet flame war.  Mea culpa.  I've loved classical architecture since I was knee high, and it seems if there is a place where it should flourish and grow, it ought to be in traditional historic districts.  It irritates me to no end that it is rarely given a chance even there.  Instead, people keep hiring avowed modernists to work there, too.  Over, and over, and over, and over ....  It's just all "modernism", all the time, almost everywhere.   Oh, well.  

From almost any perspective outside of historic preservation, I think these buildings are a significant improvement over what currently exists, and that's something to be proud of.  'Nuf said.

Edited September 10, 2018 by x99

[GRDadof3]

I think moving beyond criticism of this particular project, and onto maybe a broader topic: Has much of Grand Rapids moved beyond "Any ol infill will do." I would think that 10 years ago, infill, any infill, was much needed to add vibrancy to a lot of the business districts and downtown. Now that much of those "broken" teeth have been filled in (with a few highly impoverished areas notwithstanding), should we move beyond that to a higher more quality level of infill? Wealthy Street of all places seems to me to have moved beyond "any infill" phase. It's teaming with retail businesses and pedestrian traffic. Same with much of East Hills and Eastown. They've moved into "growing pains" stage and even "parking and traffic issues phase," which is just about at the beginning phases of peak infill. 

So while you still may find some dilapidated structures and empty holes in the ground in some areas, are those areas hurting for just "anything" to be placed there? In my opinion filling in the hole in the ground on South Division is not going to change anything about the vibrancy of South Division.  Adding another yoga shop, wine bar and/or beauty salon on Wealthy Street is not going to demonstrably change that neighborhood anymore. Should more efforts be made now to enhance/preserve the unique aesthetic of that area, for which a streetscape and residential fabric just 100 feet away are things that are pretty rare these days, except in mostly the largest of cities in the U.S. 

Thoughts?  Or are people tired of this conversation..

[x99]

3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

So while you still may find some dilapidated structures and empty holes in the ground in some areas, are those areas hurting for just "anything" to be placed there? In my opinion filling in the hole in the ground on South Division is not going to change anything about the vibrancy of South Division.  Adding another yoga shop, wine bar and/or beauty salon on Wealthy Street is not going to demonstrably change that neighborhood anymore. Should more efforts be made now to enhance/preserve the unique aesthetic of that area, for which a streetscape and residential fabric just 100 feet away are things that are pretty rare these days, except in mostly the largest of cities in the U.S. 

Thoughts?  Or are people tired of this conversation..

Tired of it or not (I am), it's an important conversation.   It's one New Urbanists have been having for decades.  Blank slate developments have an enforcement mechanism--lots of covenants and restrictions.  Cities do not.  A quality built environment is entirely voluntary.  Form-based zoning codes have taken a small stab at it, but even that can only go so far.   If the economics prove that more attractive and quality structures also attract more people, we'll at least have a quality build environment, but there are bound to be false starts along the way.   For fifty years, we completely forgot how to design urban areas (although the art of it was arguably preserved to some extent inside of shopping malls).  

So far as Wealthy specifically, assuming you could turn this into a heavily developed commercial corridor, you will run into problems trying to "enhance" the existing aesthetic.  Those corner gas stations and the remaining  houses on Wealthy are all protected, as are the houses off-Wealthy you need to tear down for parking lots.  That could be a tough nut to crack, but it may be years before that needs to become a real conversation.  

[joeDowntown]

Brewery Vivant is opening a second location / warehouse on Lake Eastbrook Boulevard / 29th Street:

https://mibiz.com/item/26146-brewery-vivant-to-open-second-grand-rapids-area-brewery-taproom

Joe

[Pattmost20]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

Brewery Vivant is opening a second location / warehouse on Lake Eastbrook Boulevard / 29th Street:

https://mibiz.com/item/26146-brewery-vivant-to-open-second-grand-rapids-area-brewery-taproom

Joe

Just spoke with one of the employees at Vivant yesterday about this. He said it will be a place to try out a lot of stuff that doesn't necessarily fit the Vivant spectrum. He said the brewers want to do both some very traditional styles like Czech Pilsner and some more out there styles.

[twoshort]

On 8/31/2018 at 8:39 AM, GVSUChris said:

Speaking of Wild Bunch - it looks like the City is looking to demolish the Wild Bunch building as they believe it is not salvageable and a risk to public safety. I'm really glad to hear this. They have prepared a presentation for the Historic Preservation Commission which I would have to believe shouldn't be an issue seeing as it is the city seeking this request. 

Looks like they were successful, it's coming down today.

[thebeerqueer]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

Brewery Vivant is opening a second location / warehouse on Lake Eastbrook Boulevard / 29th Street:

https://mibiz.com/item/26146-brewery-vivant-to-open-second-grand-rapids-area-brewery-taproom

Joe

This is an interesting strategy; instead of just doing a nondescript warehouse/production facility,  they're approaching it different and accessing potential customers in an under served area. Well done. 

[Sparty97]

1 hour ago, thebeerqueer said:

This is an interesting strategy; instead of just doing a nondescript warehouse/production facility,  they're approaching it different and accessing potential customers in an under served area. Well done. 

Sounds eerily similar to what Gravel Bottom has proposed with opening a second location on Plainfield.  

1. Both have really nice smaller places in high rent locations.

2. Both want to open a second location in a large warehouse/strip mall location to expand production.

[Pattmost20]

1 hour ago, twoshort said:

Looks like they were successful, it's coming down today.

That is awesome news!